The digital era, it was believed, would usher in a utopia for both musicians and the consumer. But in reality, artists - the people who build our nation's cultural foundation and much of the intellectual property we export - now struggle more than ever to earn a living. The creative middle class has virtually ceased to exist.

The prospect of considering expanded blocking for copyright purposes validates the fears of civil liberties groups that the introduction of blocking requirements invariably expands to cover a wider net of content. Canadian copyright was already on track for a boisterous debate in the coming years with changes such as copyright term extension mandated by the Trans Pacific Partnership and a review of the law scheduled for 2017. If government officials envision adding VPN usage, access to U.S. Netflix and website blocking to the list of issues, copyright could emerge as one of the government's most difficult and controversial issues.

There is a distinction between two kinds of rights held by copyright owners: economic rights and moral rights. Any Canadian politicians seeking to use a musical work at a public event should be aware of the legal issues that may arise when a work is directly linked with a political party or message.

There's a lot at stake here -- if Canada continues on the path the current government has set it on, then harmful policies on surveillance, Internet censorship, and Big Telecom dominance could be locked in place for a generation, and hold back our digital economy. Canadians deserve better.

Music, much like all art and cultural productions, thrives because musicians are constantly borrowing, sharing, and reacting. Slap a copyright on a chord progression, melody, riff, or a tone and watch the endless variety, one of the most beloved qualities of music and the 21st Century, wither. That's why we're fighting back against TPP copyright extremism.

The threats of hundred-thousand dollar fines and getting booted off of the Internet came on the heels of a new law requiring ISPs to pass copyright infringement notices on to their subscribers. The ISP are now legally obliged to comply, forwarding the notices along to alleged infringers verbatim and, as it now turns out, without much attention to whether the content owners were even accusing the right person.

Do we want an Internet that works for everyday citizens -- or one dominated by powerful bureaucracies, be they spy agencies, giant telecom conglomerates, or powerful Hollywood lobbyists? If we want a free and open Internet that works for all of us then we're going to have to fight for it.

Hollywood has forgotten that as much as copyright can be an engine of free expression, it may also be a vehicle for its suppression. Hollywood studios should recognize that the more power they have to ensure that their content can't be accessed without their consent, the more vulnerable they become to be targets of threat and extortion by those who do not like their content.

The Pirate Bay is a popular website for the BitTorrent downloading of music, movies, games, software and much more. Swedish police raided the site by seizing its servers in Stockholm, allegedly in connection with violation of copyright law. The Pirate Bay shutdown isn't the first and likely won't be the last of its kind. Law enforcement agencies have been raiding the Pirate Bay service since 2006. The key challenge to pursuing consumers who share and download content in violation of copyrights is identifying them. Proposed solutions to this challenge pose serious privacy law concerns.

In today's world where digital innovation is driven by the ability to access and leverage the open Internet, the TPP proposes regressive Internet regulations that would be imposed on 12 countries party to the agreement (including Canada) by unaccountable U.S. conglomerates, with little to no meaningful consultation with the public.

Publications don't exist unless content creators (i.e. writers) create some content. They deserve to be fairly paid for their work and they deserve to retain the copyright. Most major reputable publications do just that but sadly the numbers are declining.

Political speech is seemingly under attack from the last place we might expect: Canadian media broadcasters, that say parties can't use broadcasters' content in ads. Protecting copyright is not an illegitimate purpose, but this approach is less than ideal for political advertisements. Political parties rely on election advertising to persuade the electorate to vote for them. This political expression is a significantly important aspect of public discourse and should be accorded the highest priority and protection.

Now, our friends in Australia are sounding the alarm about how the Trans-Pacific Partnership could wreak havoc on Canada's economy. Australians know well the economic damage that unbalanced and extreme Internet censorship rules can cause.

Big Media lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats are holding closed-door meetings in Malaysia this week, as they continue secret talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) -- a highly secretive and extreme trade deal that includes extreme new copyright rules that could end the open Internet as we know it.

Here at OpenMedia.ca, we've already been hearing from Canadians outraged that our own Members of Parliament are still being denied access to the TPP text -- access that has now been granted to their counterparts in Washington D.C. We know that Canadians will not accept their Members of Parliament being kept in the dark

The litany of complaints about the Copyright Board of Canada has mounted in recent years: The public rarely participates in its activities due to high costs, it moves painfully slowly, and its rules encourage copyright collectives and users to establish extreme positions that make market-driven settlements more difficult.

If someone wants to post a quote from anything written by the National Post, they are now presented with pop-up box seeking a licence that starts at $150 for the Internet posting of 100 words with an extra fee of 50 cents for each additional word (the price is cut in half for non-profits). None of this requires a licence or payment. If there was a fair dealing analysis, there is no doubt that copying a hundred words out of an article would easily meet the fair dealing standard. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that copying full articles in some circumstances may be permitted.

As the 15th round of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations draw to a close, the Internet freedom community is taking stock of what was said, and perhaps more significantly, what wasn't. Developments over the last few weeks suggest that the controversial treaty may be losing steam as public opposition gains momentum. The public outcry is starting to show the cracks in the push to criminalize our Internet use.

As International Trade Minister Ed Fast returns from negotiations in Europe that failed to secure a deal on the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, newly leaked documents to the CAQ and posted by LaPresse provide a detailed look at the remaining outstanding issues with details on the Canadian and European positions.

The Canada - EU Trade Agreement negotiations continue this week in Brussels with both parties hoping to wrap up many outstanding issues. According to information provided by Canadian officials at a briefing earlier next month, the plan is to narrow the areas of disagreement to no more than ten issues, with ministers meeting in Europe in November to try to forge an agreement on the contentious areas.

On Wednesday, a U.S. court ruled resoundingly for the universities, concluding that the practices fall squarely within U.S. fair use (good analysis from Grimmelman, Madison, Smith and Krews). The case is an important win for fair use and it points to a potential model for Canadian universities that have lagged behind in ensuring digital access to materials.